, ,The authorities are cracking down hard on what they call a “terrorist network”; for now there are no visible movements of U.S. forces in the region, and Israel has ordered silence

The streets of many Iranian cities have in recent days been the scene of fierce protests, riots, and frequent clashes with security forces. The authorities claim that after a weekend marked by the most severe violence, they have managed to reassert security control, but an atmosphere of a state of emergency remains evident. Tehran is publicly speaking of an extensive “terrorist network” linked to Israel and the United States, emphasizing that the country is in the midst of a second phase of a conflict that last June had an open military dimension (Trump’s attack on Iranian nuclear facilities).

According to official Iranian sources, at least 38 members of the security forces and government supporters were killed during the unrest, including a district prosecutor in Esfarayen. Tehran’s mayor says that dozens of mosques, banks, and government buildings, as well as around a hundred emergency-service vehicles, have been burned or severely damaged in the capital. In Isfahan province, the authorities report 10 mosques burned, while the national police say hundreds of officers were wounded after being attacked with hunting rifles and military-grade ammunition. The National Security Council and the Revolutionary Guard announced the arrest of around 200 alleged leaders of the uprising and the seizure of large quantities of weapons. After the bloodiest night, the government declared three days of national mourning for the killed members of the security forces and supporters, who are described in state media as martyrs.

In parallel with the state narrative, alternative estimates are being circulated by human rights organizations in exile and political networks. One such estimate speaks of more than 500 dead and thousands arrested. Due to the internet shutdown (which is very strict—aside from low-resolution footage, little has emerged from Iran in recent days) and the fact that many of these actors openly position themselves as opponents of the authorities, the credibility of figures from this circle remains questionable. Reality on the ground may be milder or more dramatic, but at this stage it is clear that information reaching the media comes from groups operating from clearly defined political positions, which makes an objective picture difficult.

Iranian officials describe the past few nights as the moment when social protests turned into armed attacks by organized groups. Government advisers speak of cells operating in coordination with Israel’s Mossad and U.S. structures. In Tehran, they recall June, when Israeli and American attacks killed more than a thousand Iranians and when the authorities managed to mobilize broad national consensus. Today the same framework is being used, with talk of a shift from open military confrontation to street destabilization and attacks on police, mosques, and public services. Police leadership is announcing a tougher response and openly treating violent rioters as terrorists.

A key element of the crisis remains the information blockade. Internet access has been cut in much of Iran for more than three days, with partial connectivity maintained via satellite links, cross-border mobile signals, and shortwave radio. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has announced a gradual restoration of connectivity, including for foreign embassies, but without precise timelines, while the ministry’s spokesperson emphasizes cooperation with security services. In practice, this means that the picture of events is formed through a combination of state propaganda, propaganda from opposition networks in exile, and rare amateur videos that make it out of the country.

On the other side of the Atlantic, Donald Trump is intensifying verbal pressure on Tehran day by day. He openly warns that if Iranian forces begin shooting at protesters (which, he claims, is already largely happening), the United States will strike Iran with a “very strong military blow.” U.S. media report on internal debates in the White House covering scenarios from cyber operations to precision airstrikes, as well as meetings between Trump and key figures in the diplomatic and military leadership. At the same time, the Pentagon has not yet moved significant additional forces toward the region, and there are no new U.S. aircraft carriers near Iran, leading some experts to conclude that this is pressure without immediate operational preparation.

Iran emphasizes that Trump is acting in tandem with Israel. In Tel Aviv, recent days have shown a shift toward caution. The political and security leadership wants to keep Iran out of public debate precisely because it judges the situation to be extremely volatile. According to Israeli political sources, the security establishment has asked ministers to exercise restraint in public statements about Iranian protests and repression, because any sentence can within minutes end up in Tehran’s media as proof that Israel is the one “activating the street.” The government first fell silent spontaneously, and then an official directive was sent to ministers in connection with meetings of the inner and political-security cabinet, showing that Israel is carefully calibrating its messages and trying to avoid the role of public protector of the protesters.

Tehran is responding to the threats with a combination of harsh rhetoric and signals that it is not closing the door to diplomacy. Foreign Minister Araghchi, in a meeting with ambassadors, claims that Iran does not seek conflict but is fully prepared for war, warning that any miscalculation by the American or Israeli side would carry a high price. President Masoud Pezeshkian says that a potential attack would harm Iran, but that a response would seriously endanger U.S. interests in the region. Top military and political officials mention lists of targets including U.S. bases in the Gulf and state that Iran has both defensive and offensive plans prepared. At the same time, the Foreign Ministry confirms that there is a direct communication channel with the White House via the Swiss embassy, and that messages are exchanged as needed, alongside constant repetition of Iran’s position on negotiations based on equality.

China publicly states that it opposes the use of force in international relations and views any attack on Iran as a violation of state sovereignty. Beijing calls on all sides to reduce tensions, expresses hope that Iran’s authorities and society will overcome current difficulties together, and at the same time protects its own major energy and infrastructure interests in the country. In other words, these are familiar, protocol-level Chinese statements. Russia officially takes a similarly restrained stance, limiting itself to general messages about a peaceful solution, while its state media fully convey the Iranian narrative about the role of the U.S. and Israel in organizing the violence. European governments, especially Berlin, emphasize condemnation of the use of force against protesters and speak of new targeted sanctions against responsible individuals, while the UN Secretary-General calls for restraint, restoration of internet connectivity, and respect for citizens’ fundamental rights.

On the ground, there is currently an impression (though perhaps only an impression) of stabilization. The Iranian authorities have carried out a strong security response, organized large pro-government marches, and built a narrative that the street uprising has been partially crushed and those responsible arrested. The social and economic causes that originally brought people into the streets remain present, while currency depreciation and rising prices shape everyday life. In such an environment, threats of military strikes from Washington raise the stakes but simultaneously make it easier for authorities in Tehran to portray any criticism as an extension of foreign intelligence networks. The coming days will depend on the real intensity of protests beneath the layer of censorship, on internal debate in Washington, and on the Israeli security establishment, which has fallen silent—but perhaps that very silence suggests that something significant may be in the works.